BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?

No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Decisions >> FLYING HORSE (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2001] UKIntelP o19901 (26 April 2001)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2001/o19901.html
Cite as: [2001] UKIntelP o19901

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


FLYING HORSE (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2001] UKIntelP o19901 (26 April 2001)

For the whole decision click here: o19901

Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/199/01
Decision date
26 April 2001
Hearing officer
Mr A James
Mark
FLYING HORSE
Classes
14, 18, 25, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33
Applicant
Altmuhltaler Heilquellen GmbH
Opponent
Mobil Oil Corporation
Opposition
Sections 3(6); 5(3) & 5(4)(a)

Result

Section 3(6): - Opposition partially successful.

Section 5(3): - Opposition failed.

Section 5(4)(a): - Opposition failed.

Points Of Interest

Summary

The opposition was based on the opponents’ use and registrations of their mark, consisting of the device of a winged horse. Dealing with the matter under Section 5(4)(a) the Hearing Officer concluded that given the different fields of activity and the mere similarity of the marks there was no likelihood of confusion or deception. The opposition under Section 5(4)(a) failed. The opposition failed also under Section 5(3) but partially succeeded under Section 3(6), in that the applicants had not shown any intention to use the mark in respect of the full range of the goods specified in their applications.



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2001/o19901.html